Posted on 09/24/2006 6:36:02 AM PDT by Diddle E. Squat
How difficult would it be to resend the "Born Here & you're an American Rule?
This is one issue that gets me seething at BOTH Parties!
Yes.
You either have to repeal the 14th amendment or Congress would have to propose a new amendment which requires a 2/3rds majority vote in both houses and 3/4's of the states approving.
The truth is that America "progressed" far better a generation ago when it was not burdened by the overwhelming crime and tax burden that the illegal aliens are imposing on the nation.
It progressed with legal aliens. Quite a difference that funding illegal activities does not cure.
Says who, you? Maybe with a liberal, activist Supreme Court that could be how it's interpreted but the authors of the amendment made it clear illegal aliens would not qualify for automatic citizenship. So Congress is in their right to legislate through statute an end to the practice, then we can let this Supreme Court hear it.
I condemn the welfare mentality. Without exception. Now, will you condemn illegal mexicans that have the welfare mentality?
What is this "smear the whole ethnic group" pc claptrap? It has nothing to do with ethnic groups. If the humanoids that live in the area to the south of the United States were green martians (or white, if that's what your fishing for) the point is the same. No one comes in without permission.
Above is the first sentence of the 14 th amendment. That'a pretty clear language.
The best way to deal with the anchor baby problem is a new amendment.
Undocumented immigrants...in a sane world they'd be called what they are, illegal aliens. But that's not PC. Next we'll call them what the CFR suggests, 'trusted travelers'. We're paying for the southern half of this hemisphere's ethnic cleansing..i.e. riding themselves of unwanted, unskilled poor. This is not a healthy or moral concept and not good for any of the nations involved. Mexico in particular is becoming depopulated. This will lead to instability and civil war, and what will the US do then?
Apparently you haven't noticed the price of baby formula.
I read an article recently and, please don't ask me to produce
the proof of the article, that stores selling baby formula had to pull it from their shelves due to steeling of the product.
Squirting out the "instant citizens".
In 1866, the author of the amendment Senator Jacob Howard wrote:
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
"Senator Howard wrote the addition phrase specifically because he wanted to make it clear that the simple accident of birth in the US is not sufficient to justify citizenship."
Sorry to disappoint Dane but you're wrong again as usual. Now, if you had a liberal Supreme Court no doubt they'd agree with you but this current one I suspect may not be so inclined.
A near by county here in Tn. I am told doesn't have a single, short fat woman left in the county.
Migrant workers marry them to have a child which, in titles them to all the social programs in the state.
I'm not necessarily against a new amendment, but I have heard a Constitutional scholar on talk radio make the point that the "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" clause can be legitimately interpreted to exclude illegals, since they have not made themselves subject to US juridiction through the normally recognized channels of coming legally, announcing their presence to the authorities, abiding by US law, etc. IMO, a few more conservatives on the court could be all it takes to change the interpretation of the 14th.
One facet of the problem is that Americans generally have kids when they feel they can afford them. Keep Americans poor enough by forcing them to pay for other people's kids, and they (the Americans) won't have any.
"This will not, of course, include persons born in the United States who are foreigners, aliens, who belong to the families of ambassadors, or foreign ministers accredited to the Government of the United States, but will include every other class of persons."
Then why didn't Senator Howard Jacob include that language in the 14th amendment.
It's the first sentence of the 14th amendment that matters, not Howard Jacob's personal comments.
In 1866 the phrase "and subject to the jurisdiction thereof" was a given that they knew what it meant. It involved allegiance to the country, not simply an individual's presence. If the USSC interprets the amendment as it was intended they will uphold any statute Congress passes denying automatic citizenship to illegal aliens.
Well Howard Jacob left the phrase vague, giving an opening to the modern day liberals.
The second amendment has clear language saying that the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
In 1866 the wording of the amendment was not considered vague, it had a clear meaning. It still does except for the fact that some have been allowed to twist it into something else and continue to get away with it.
Uh Senator Jacob's comments on the 14th amendment had clear meaning, which he should have included in the 14th amendment but did not.
See the CFR. The stampede north is the result of the failure of NAFTA and CAFTA. After the cold war ended, movers and shakers (including big business), got together and decided the US should export capitalism to the rest of the hemisphere as a deterrent to another rise of communism and violence. A rising tide lifts all boats deal. The thinking couldn't be clearer. If we can't get them to change one way, we'll do it another. Allowing millions into the US, to become Americanized -- infected if you will with American values and work ethic, capitalism spreads and the tide rises.
That's if some return home to change Costa Rica or Mexico, et al. into productive countries. (A Pollyanna notion at best. Who in his right mind would go back to Venezuela and life under Chavez? Or Nicaragua and Noriega, the odds on favorite to win the next election and goodbye democracy hello communism.)
This has been foisted upon US citizens without their knowledge, without open discussion, without a vote and in a time of war. It's unconstitutional and nobody in the corridors of power seems to have considered the effect of millions of Spanish speaking, Latino cultured people, most of whom are unskilled and/illiterate, with no notion of hygiene, without innoculations, without a clue, some criminals, drug dealers and who knows what flooding over the border all at once would have on this country. Too many all at once to assimilate. We've been invaded, and we see the return of TB, and now drug resistant TB, all kinds of Hepatitis, measles, mumps, and other diseases we'd wiped out in the US. The end effect will be Balkanization and the loss of US culture, common language, and sovereignty. Where does it say the US has to be the nanny for the hemisphere? If the other countries want to live in poverty and squalor, so what. Let them do as they please. Put up the wall and do it yesterday.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.